Anemervi

@[email protected]

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Anemervi,

The latest trick is they ignore the default choice completely and open all links in Outlook in edge anyhow, also they are sending notifications saying to use edge or get less battery time.

Anemervi,

Official client list matrix.org/ecosystem/clients/

Anemervi,

If you need more ammunition they recently also changed it so all links in Outlook opens in Edge even if it’s not the default browser. You have to go to settings and find an entirely separate default browser setting to stop it.

Anemervi,

As far as I’m aware WS is pretty close to what you get by just using virtalbox (with an easier setup) so you could do that on Linux. With Linux you also have more advanced solutions though like en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubes_OS

Anemervi, (edited )

Write to your country’s anti-trust body if you feel Google is unilaterally going after the open web with WEI (content below taken from HN thread news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36880390).

US:


<span style="color:#323232;">https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/report-antitrust-violation
</span><span style="color:#323232;">[email protected]
</span>

EU:


<span style="color:#323232;">https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/antitrust/contact_en
</span><span style="color:#323232;">[email protected]
</span>

UK:


<span style="color:#323232;">https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tell-the-cma-about-a-competition…
</span><span style="color:#323232;">[email protected]
</span>

India:


<span style="color:#323232;">https://www.cci.gov.in/antitrust/
</span><span style="color:#323232;">https://www.cci.gov.in/filing/atd
</span>

Example email:


<span style="color:#323232;">Google has proposed a new Web Environment Integrity standard, outlined here: https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/blob/main/explainer.md
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">This standard would allow Google applications to block users who are not using Google products like Chrome or Android, and encourages other web developers to do the same, with the goal of eliminating ad blockers and competing web browsers.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Google has already begun implementing this in their browser here: https://github.com/chromium/chromium/commit/6f47a22906b2899412e79a2727355efa9cc8f5bd
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Basic facts:
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">    Google is a developer of popular websites such as google.com and youtube.com (currently the two most popular websites in the world according to SimilarWeb)
</span><span style="color:#323232;">    Google is the developer of the most popular browser in the world, Chrome, with around 65% of market share. Most other popular browsers are based on Chromium, also developed primarily by Google.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">    Google is the developer of the most popular mobile operating system in the world, Android, with around 70% of market share.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Currently, Google’s websites can be viewed on any web-standards-compliant browser on a device made by any manufacturer. This WEI proposal would allow Google websites to reject users that are not running a Google-approved browser on a Google-approved device. For example, Google could require that Youtube or Google Search can only be viewed using an official Android app or the Chrome browser, thereby noncompetitively locking consumers into using Google products while providing no benefit to those consumers.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Google is also primarily an ad company, with the majority of its revenue coming from ads. Google’s business model is challenged by browsers that do not show ads the way Google intends. This proposal would encourage any web developer using Google’s ad services to reject users that are not running a verified Google-approved version of Chrome, to ensure ads are viewed the way the advertiser wishes. This is not a hypothetical hidden agenda, it is explicitly stated in the proposal:
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">“Users like visiting websites that are expensive to create and maintain, but they often want or need to do it without paying directly. These websites fund themselves with ads, but the advertisers can only afford to pay for humans to see the ads, rather than robots. This creates a need for human users to prove to websites that they’re human, sometimes through tasks like challenges or logins.”
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">The proposed solution here is to allow web developers to reject any user that cannot prove they have viewed Google-served ads with their own human eyes.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">It is essential to combat this proposal now, while it is still in an early stage. Once this is rolled out into Chrome and deployed around the world, it will be extremely difficult to rollback. It may be impossible to prevent this proposal if Google is allowed to continue owning the entire stack of website, browser, operating system, and hardware.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Thank you for your consideration of this important issue.
</span>
Anemervi,

Thanks, fixed.

Anemervi, (edited )

Write to your country’s anti-trust body if you feel Google is unilaterally going after the open web with WEI (content below taken from HN thread news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36880390).

US:


<span style="color:#323232;">https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/report-antitrust-violation
</span><span style="color:#323232;">[email protected]
</span>

EU:


<span style="color:#323232;">https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/antitrust/contact_en
</span><span style="color:#323232;">[email protected]
</span>

UK:


<span style="color:#323232;">https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tell-the-cma-about-a-competition…
</span><span style="color:#323232;">[email protected]
</span>

India:


<span style="color:#323232;">https://www.cci.gov.in/antitrust/
</span><span style="color:#323232;">https://www.cci.gov.in/filing/atd
</span>

Example email:


<span style="color:#323232;">Google has proposed a new Web Environment Integrity standard, outlined here: https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/blob/main/explainer.md
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">This standard would allow Google applications to block users who are not using Google products like Chrome or Android, and encourages other web developers to do the same, with the goal of eliminating ad blockers and competing web browsers.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Google has already begun implementing this in their browser here: https://github.com/chromium/chromium/commit/6f47a22906b2899412e79a2727355efa9cc8f5bd
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Basic facts:
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">    Google is a developer of popular websites such as google.com and youtube.com (currently the two most popular websites in the world according to SimilarWeb)
</span><span style="color:#323232;">    Google is the developer of the most popular browser in the world, Chrome, with around 65% of market share. Most other popular browsers are based on Chromium, also developed primarily by Google.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">    Google is the developer of the most popular mobile operating system in the world, Android, with around 70% of market share.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Currently, Google’s websites can be viewed on any web-standards-compliant browser on a device made by any manufacturer. This WEI proposal would allow Google websites to reject users that are not running a Google-approved browser on a Google-approved device. For example, Google could require that Youtube or Google Search can only be viewed using an official Android app or the Chrome browser, thereby noncompetitively locking consumers into using Google products while providing no benefit to those consumers.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Google is also primarily an ad company, with the majority of its revenue coming from ads. Google’s business model is challenged by browsers that do not show ads the way Google intends. This proposal would encourage any web developer using Google’s ad services to reject users that are not running a verified Google-approved version of Chrome, to ensure ads are viewed the way the advertiser wishes. This is not a hypothetical hidden agenda, it is explicitly stated in the proposal:
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">“Users like visiting websites that are expensive to create and maintain, but they often want or need to do it without paying directly. These websites fund themselves with ads, but the advertisers can only afford to pay for humans to see the ads, rather than robots. This creates a need for human users to prove to websites that they’re human, sometimes through tasks like challenges or logins.”
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">The proposed solution here is to allow web developers to reject any user that cannot prove they have viewed Google-served ads with their own human eyes.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">It is essential to combat this proposal now, while it is still in an early stage. Once this is rolled out into Chrome and deployed around the world, it will be extremely difficult to rollback. It may be impossible to prevent this proposal if Google is allowed to continue owning the entire stack of website, browser, operating system, and hardware.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Thank you for your consideration of this important issue.
</span>
Anemervi,
  • You might need to buy additional food
  • Wear and tear of work attire
  • Might need to pay extra for someone to watch pet/child

Also there are additional costs of time

  • Extra time shaving or similar (if you know you are staying home some things can be delayed a bit)
  • Possibly extra time to prepare food
  • Traffic/weather delays
  • Extra effort for small things easily manage while at home e.g accepting deliveries, watching pets or opening for maintenance workers

That’s of the top of my head, so 1 hour lost per day is a low estimate.

0, to technology
@0@mastodon.ie avatar

Google’s Plan To DRM The Web Goes Against Everything Google Once Stood For

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/08/02/googles-plan-to-drm-the-web-goes-against-everything-google-once-stood-for/

@technology

Anemervi,

I’m not sure there’s anything we can do at this point.

Best case might be if we could get EU to ban it.

Anemervi,

It’s not uncommon for such sites to work fine in Firefox if you just add a user agent switcher addon, so that is worth trying (can be limited to specific sites so you advertise Firefox usage for others).

Anemervi,

Found a related issue, as suggested there a workaround with a web server config could be possible.

Anemervi,

As far as I can tell both “Lemmy support community” and “Lemmy Matrix room” point to the same url (lemmy.ml/c/lemmy_support).

Anemervi,

One way to hide it for Firefox users.


<span style="color:#323232;"><p class="not-firefox-warning">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">    This site is designed for <a href="https://firefox.com/">Firefox</a>,
</span><span style="color:#323232;">    a web browser that respects your privacy.
</span><span style="color:#323232;"></p>
</span><span style="color:#323232;"><style>
</span><span style="color:#323232;">@-moz-document url-prefix() {  .not-firefox-warning { display: none; }}
</span><span style="color:#323232;"></style>
</span>
  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • uselessserver093
  • Food
  • aaaaaaacccccccce
  • test
  • CafeMeta
  • testmag
  • MUD
  • RhythmGameZone
  • RSS
  • dabs
  • KamenRider
  • KbinCafe
  • Ask_kbincafe
  • TheResearchGuardian
  • Socialism
  • oklahoma
  • SuperSentai
  • feritale
  • All magazines
    •